Equal Rights Amendment sounds good, but it's really bad for women

Equal Rights Amendment sound good, but it's really bad for women

On April 11, 2018 the Illinois Senate passed the Equal Rights Amendment asS enate Joint Resolution Constitution Amendment 4 (SJRCA4), with the help of eight Republican senators who cast a YES vote with fellow Democrat senators.

It matters not that ERA has already been voted down thirteen times by former Illinois lawmakers, that five states recinded their passage of the Equal Rights Amendment before the 1979 original deadline, and that
only one state, Nevada, has ratified ERA between 1979 and 2018. Illinois proponent of ERA, NOW (National Organization of Women) and the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), refuse to give up.

Illinois is now a pivotal state in passing ERA. With Nevada's ratification of ERA in 2017, only two more states are possibly needed for "retroactive ratification", then supporters of ERA will claim that ERA has reached
the required 38 votes for it to become a Constitutional Amendment. Accordingly, it is very important for Illinois's ERA bill to be defeated when it comes up for a vote in the Illinois House in May.

Concerning the time limitation for the ratification of ERA, proponents are maintaining that states did not vote on the clause which addressed time limitations, arguing instead that the three-year extension was NOT relevant to the passage of the amendment because states ONLY voted on the text of the 1972 ERA amendment.

Given the make-up of the Supreme Court, it would be unwise to play Russian roulette over how the judges might vote in deciding the ERA time limit question. An affirmative majority vote would mandate that the ERA amendment become the law of the land.

ERA Amendment Explained

The text is as follows:
Section 1. Equality of rights under the law shall not be denied or abridged by
the United States or by any state on account of sex. (The mention of sex is gender neutral. There is no legal definition of sex differences.)

Section 2. The Congress shall have the power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article. (All power is given over to the federal government to regulate the states.)

Section 3. This amendment shall take effect two years after the date of ratification. (The date for states to ratify has long passed.)

At first glance ERA may sound good to some people, especially as set forth by its proponents. For what is wrong with equal rights for men and women? Paramount is that ERA has nothing to do with equal rights or
equal pay for women. Besides, doesn't the 14th Amendment require equal protection under the law for both men and women?
Foundational arguments for opposing ERA

Issues under intense pressure by the Left -- gay rights, abortion, women in the military, discrimination in athletics, etc. -- are presently being dealt with by judicial fiat and legislation. It's one thing to change customs by law or judicial rulings. If something doesn't work out it can be modified; however, with a Constitutional amendment we might never be able to change or get rid of things we don't like at any given time down the road. Furthermore, all states would be required to abide by the gender-neutral requirements of the ERA amendment.

As to why ERA has become so important to pass by Illinois proponents of ERA (Illinois has a bullseye on its back.), stems from ERA's link with the progressive Left's concerted effort, funded largely by Marxist, billionaire George Soros, to create confusion, chaos and descent among the American people as to how they view today's social issues. There is an attempt to convince the public, not unlike the ERA Amendment would
require if passed by 38 states, that there is no difference between a man and a woman, that there are more than two genders, and that it is impossible to differentiate between abortions and the medical procedures
sought by men.
How ERA would Affect Illinoisans
Although there are many troubling aspect of the ERA Amendment, I've chosen several that I thought should be of concern to most Illinoisans, unless they are blind to what is happening in society, or political correctness
prevents them from admitting the dangerous path this nation is on if the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union) and NOW (National Organization of Women) are successful in convincing enough legislators that ERA that Mother Nature can be altered according to a person's whim or fancy, so no difference exists between a man and a woman in every aspect of their lives.

Did you realize that if ERA were passed, women would be drafted into the armed services as the ERA amendment does not recognize any gender differences. Men and women must be treated the same way. What is good for the goose is good for the gander! Granted, there are some women who might fit the bill, having the necessary strength and endurance needed to serve with men in combat, but women are already able to enlist and serve, but as volunteers.

What about gender neutral bathrooms? Are you fine with unspecified bathrooms being the norm wherever you go? If men and women are equal in every way, why the need for separate bathroom? This will also apply to changing room.

And what about girls and boys sports in high school and college?The perceived unfairness of men having more sporting activities to participate in than women in high school and college than woman was legislated by Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, which is federal law. Title IX, among other things, requires that women and men be provided equitable opportunities to participate in sports. Title IX doesn't require institutions to offer identical sports but an equal opportunity to play. In some school situations girls and boys do play on the teams of each other by design, but ERA would open up all sports teams to both men and women. As to the transgender issue in sports, recently a boy who is now undergoing hormone therapy to become a girl was found to have an unfair advantage over his female opponent because she/he still had a more powerful muscular structure.

Paramount Issue of Concern

What should really resonate is among the thousands of homemakers here is Illinois who never worked outside the home, or who didn't work enough years to quality for Social Security but who are now receiving, upon the death of their spouse, what their husbands would have received in Social Security payments. It would take away the security of a homemaker who perhaps never worked but was instead a full-time Mom. There must be thousands of women in Illinois who are receiving SS payments based on what their husbands would have received. These benefits would be denied to women because they never earned it! Homemakers are important at a time when women are being
driven to become part of the work force whether by necessity of not? Age of consent and parental notification laws will also be eliminated if ERA is ratified as an Amendment.